Correction: "99 reasons but a bit (code) ain't one"

Starthead: "We were naive idiots"

1 star review: Smoke detector stopped sounding alarm when fire finally reached it and destroyed it.

I would be happy to guarantee a college education to anyone willing to work hard for it. The community college here gives huge discounts to people with a job that are paying for school themselves, and extra bonuses to people that manage to juggle work, kids and school. These discounts only apply to people that are actually making the grade. They also don't give out largely useless degrees like "master of philosophy."

But at big universities fraternities, sports, meaningless degrees, and people simply uninterested in earning or giving an education... no wonder it seems like we need to burn the entire system down and figure out something new.

The article writer was pursuing a degree that leads to a 4+ year school. But it is a degree that is worth precisely nothing as there is no way to gain a job outside of academia in it.

I am all for education funding reform and making it possible for everyone that is motivated and ready to do hard work to get an education, but this guy is the poster child for not reforming a thing.

I worked my ass off, both in school and at my job, with a clear career goal. But only at a 2 year school that my field required at the time. The people I saw coasting through school and got the rubber-stamp degree all failed once they graduated. Whether they had mommy and daddy paying for it, or free government grant; those that worked hard are successful, those that put in no effort failed in life.

Perhaps you can become Prometheus but instead eat your own liver.

A: I doubt people eat their own liver or kidney often.
B: They are really bad for you. You really don't want gout, trust me.

How about this benefit: you can say to your child: "If you don't settle down, I will eat you. I have done it before."

Yeah, the summary is flat out wrong.

That was a sick burn .

I thought setting the heads of people that use Beats on fire was a feature.

Well I have an AMD computer, so I am obviously a sucker.

But this is interesting. I am using RAID1 mirroring only, as giant drives are so cheap and plentiful. So RAID performance really isn't an issue to me at all. Maybe there is no need for hardware RAID. The super high performance stuff I do all goes on an SSD anyhow.

I know the setup I have works as I did recently replace a drive. I have said many times before that I am done buying spinning disks, the next machine will be all SSD.

Remember that the 125W is only the max usage. This is a computer that gets turned off when I am not using it, so the power usage is minuscule compared to a refrigerator. (or the second beer fridge in the basement...)

However, if the new chips are going to double power usage, for very little gain in performance, well perhaps it is time for a change. Eventually... I don't see myself needing a new computer for a couple years. I have no illusions that AMD will actually start to care about power usage anytime soon, however.

Also in my previous post I meant to say "performance/Watt instead of performance/$".

Actually for a while it was the other way around. AMD pioneered x86-64 and Intel was the one playing compatible catch-up when they tried to bank on IA-64 and it tanked badly.

However AMD managed to squander any gains they had their and have fallen to the distant #2 once again.

True, this is all about integrated stuff that I do not care at all about.

But, I don't know, its been 2+ years since the last time I have looked at hardware (had to look at my newegg order history to figure out how long ago), so maybe things have changed; but I really tried to buy Intel last time out. But when you add the motherboards that cost $100 more for high end boards, I just couldn't find a price point where Intel was able to match.

The result was I paid $200 for an FX-8350, which probably wasn't AMD's fastest chip at the time, and $120 for an ASRock moberboard with onboard raid. I remember all of the benchmarks compared it to the i7, which of course trounced it. But compared to similarly priced i5 at the time the AMD was just better. (also considering motherboard prices)

Of course, I was already planning a large case with a large heatsink/fan combo, so thermal concerns were not part of my calculation. If I wanted a reasonably sized computer, I would almost have to buy Intel.

It is probably just the specific configuration I do (bargain medium-high end graphics and gaming) is not as popular as it once was.

That being said, I looked at Newegg's featured AMD processors and the most popular one was... still the same 4ghz FX-8350 with the same serial number for nearly the same price I ppid... after 2 years? What? The FX-9590 doesnt seem to be a significant step up in performance from the 8350. It is only slightly more expensive.

On boards... I guess I don't know how to price Intel boards. The most expensive ASRock AMD motherboard is $190 (though it seems to have the same features as the $140 ones, I did not look closely. The Intel ones all all over the map from $120 to $650, but it seems like the i5 boards are less than $160 so it looks like these are more competitive now.

And the FX-9590 is 220 Watts?? At this point I should be looking at price/W instead of price/$.